Cellular RF Study Final Report - planning.ubc.ca · Cellular RF Study Final Report University of British Columbia Final Report – Issue 1 Page 2 of 41 10 August 2012 IT and Telecom

Cellular RF Study

Final Report

10 August 2012

IT and Telecom Consulting

Prepared by: Ellen Koskinen-Dodgson and Peter Aggus Direct tel: 604-506-2905 / 250-885-0582 [email protected] / [email protected]

Company : TMC IT and Telecom Consulting Inc. #1300 - 1500 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6G 2Z6

University of British Columbia

Cellular RF Study

Final Report


Final Report – Issue 1 Page 2 of 41 10 August 2012


Contents

1 Executive Summary 4

2 Project Objectives 5

2.1 Existing Cellular Installations ................................................................. 5

2.2 Future Demand ..................................................................................... 5

2.3 Projected Technology Evolution ............................................................ 5

2.4 Site Sharing ........................................................................................... 5

2.5 Inappropriate Sites ................................................................................ 5

2.6 Proposed Site Evaluation Criteria .......................................................... 5

2.7 Proposed Approval Process - Technical ................................................. 5

2.8 Proposed Approval Process - Commercial ............................................. 5

3 Project Methodology 6

3.1 Organize Project .................................................................................... 6

3.2 Review Current Situation ...................................................................... 6

3.3 Develop Strategy ................................................................................... 8

4 Research Results 10

4.1 Existing Cellular Installations ............................................................... 10

4.2 Stakeholder Meeting Summary ........................................................... 12

4.3 Future Demand ................................................................................... 13

4.4 Projected Technology Evolution .......................................................... 14

4.5 Site Sharing ......................................................................................... 16

4.6 Inappropriate Sites .............................................................................. 16

4.7 Proposed Site Evaluation Criteria ........................................................ 20

4.8 Proposed Approval Process – Technical............................................... 22

4.9 Proposed Approval Process – Commercial........................................... 23

4.10 Field Survey around Allard Hall............................................................ 24

5 Recommendations 26

5.1 Existing Installations ............................................................................ 26

5.2 Future Installations ............................................................................. 26

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




5.3 Contract Issues .................................................................................... 28

6 Next Steps 30

6.1 Internal Issues ..................................................................................... 30

6.2 External Issues .................................................................................... 32

6.3 UBC Process Management Option....................................................... 33

7 Appendix 35

7.1 Stakeholder Meetings ......................................................................... 35

7.2 Henry Angus Rules .............................................................................. 38

7.3 Cell Site Inventory ............................................................................... 39

7.4 Required Radio Signal Strength ........................................................... 41

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




1 Executive Summary

UBC is experiencing escalating requests for new cellular installations on campus and in the adjacent university neighbourhoods. TMC was engaged to conduct a study to determine existing and future coverage needs, and how these requests could be better assessed, managed and regulated.

The report reviews current and future coverage requirements as well as how technological change will influence growth.

Cellular carriers are not happy with the UBC process for assessing antenna installation applications. In general, the procedures are fine but the process needs clear management controls including specific timelines.

Contracts need to be changed to improve safety assessments. Currently, carriers calculate the RF energy that their installation is expected to generate and create a safety assessment without actual measurements. When multiple carriers share a site and when carriers come back to a site to `maintain their equipment` but actually add transmitters to their installation, there are completely unknown levels of RF energy. Carriers must be made to conduct proper testing to reduce UBC`s potential liability.

UBC could drive the planning process – currently they react to carrier demand and carriers just react to what they see in their networks. Working cooperatively in planning will provide improved outcomes.

Our vision is that UBC will build a plan of where cell sites will be located and the carriers will build on those locations as they see the need for growth. The current need for approving carrier designs could disappear as UBC could manage the design process themselves.

The report itemizes our recommendations as they were developed and then organizes them into groups for suggested implementation – explaining how UBC might proceed further.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




2 Project Objectives

The objectives in the following subsections come from the original Request for Proposal, which is regarded as the sponsorship document. In a formal Project Management scenario, meeting all these foundation objectives is the key to defining success.

2.1 Existing Cellular Installations

The existing cellular RF installations will be inventoried.

2.2 Future Demand

Future demand for cellular RF service on UBC academic and neighbourhood lands will be estimated.

2.3 Projected Technology Evolution

Likely future changes in the industry and its technology that may affect the nature of installations will be assessed and documented.

2.4 Site Sharing

The need and value of site sharing by providers will be assessed.

2.5 Inappropriate Sites

Locations that are not appropriate for installations will be investigated and documented.

2.6 Proposed Site Evaluation Criteria

Criteria will be developed to evaluate new installation locations based on coverage needs and compatibility with relevant UBC land use planning policy documents and design guidelines (Land Use Plan, Vancouver Campus Plan, Neighbourhood Plans) and identify the types of installations that would be appropriate (e.g. building interiors or exteriors, monopoles) for these locations.

2.7 Proposed Approval Process - Technical

The current approval process will be assessed and recommendations for improvement made as required, to ensure an efficient, transparent, and rigorous consultative and technical review process.

2.8 Proposed Approval Process - Commercial

The process for licensing providers will be reviewed and recommendations on the commercial terms and rates structure made.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




3 Project Methodology

This section is a summary of the steps taken to gather information on which to build our recommendations. Key to the process was a desire to meet with stakeholders who are deemed to have influence on the needs or deliverables related to the project.

3.1 Organize Project

The Project Work Plan was presented to the Steering Group on Monday May 7th and discussed. At the request of the Steering Group, the public input task was deferred until after the report had been published.

3.2 Review Current Situation

3.2.1 Stakeholder Meetings

Meetings were set up with five UBC Stakeholder Groups on Monday May 28th and Tuesday May 29th as follows:

Session Attendees

1

Gerry McGeough, University Architect Kavie Toor, Associate Director, UBC Athletics and Rec Facilities & Business Development Suzanne Poohkay, Director Facilities Planning, Infrastructure Development Bob Macdonald, IT

2

Chris Skipper, Facility Manager Greig Samodien, Facility Manager Rob MacDonald, Facility Manager Geoff Armstrong, IT

3 Ed Lin, Chief Building Official James Heth, UBC Treasury

4 Bruce Anderson Risk Management

5 Jan Fialkowski, Executive Director, University Neighbourhoods Association

The raw meeting notes are included in the Appendix (Section 7.1 on page 35).

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




A meeting with Matt Yedlin to discuss EMC issues did not mature because Matt is in Europe and his suggested alternate attendees were unavailable. Prior to the production of this final version of our report, an opportunity arose to meet with Mark Halpern. The results of that meeting have been included in section 7.1.6 and the points raised have been integrated into the recommendations, resulting in some minor changes from the interim report.

In addition to meeting with UBC staff, a telephone discussion was arranged with each of the carriers to gain their perspective. This approach was extended to two 3rd party companies involved in construction work for the cellular companies in order to better understand how these agreements worked. This included basic construction specialists as well as a company offering a novel approach using “fake trees” – a possibility being considered on the South Campus.

3.2.2 Inventory existing cellular RF installations

We received input from two UBC departments (Campus & Community Planning and Contracts & Leases) listing known sites on UBC property. We also researched input from the Industry Canada “Technical and Administrative Frequency Lists” (TAFL) to find out what cellular sites existed in the UBC area.

The two UBC sources show what UBC is “aware of” and the TAFL source shows what is “believed to exist”.

A map presentation based on the TAFL data set, along with all the source data are included in the “As-Is Report”. The map is also reproduced in section 4.1 below and the source data is in the Appendix (Section 7.3 on page 39).

3.2.3 Conduct sample test measurements

The aim was to plot field strength contours around Allard Hall using cellular receivers on the Rogers and Telus networks to highlight any coverage differences.

The measurements were planned to extend out about 100m from the building on all sides, establishing where areas of good and poor coverage are located.

No in-building measurements were planned.

The planned result was to be in the form of an idealized contour map showing approximately where coverage issues are likely to be encountered on the two networks with the existing base station configuration.

It was noted that the new base station locations at Buchanan and Gage Towers will significantly affect the signal strength in this area – rendering current measurements out of date.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




The results, however, should illustrate the problems of the "urban canyon” effect on cellular signals around buildings and will help explain some of the recommendations made.

When the actual measurements were taken, we changed our test plan because the measurements on the Telus network failed. We therefore took the opportunity to spread the survey over a much larger area than originally planned and to just measure the Rogers network.

We still surveyed around 100 points as planned – but we used a flexible rather than a fixed grid in order to cover more ground. This allowed us to extend the survey to cover over 5km around Allard Hall – limited a little in the northwest segment by the need to avoid disturbing the various Grad photo sessions in progress. We only took measurements when the signal level changed – allowing much greater scope of measurement.

These sample measurements are a reasonable guide as to what sort of service might be expected at various locations. The results have allowed us to develop several suggestions about radio coverage on campus, which will be discussed later in the report.

Maps and all the source data are included in the “As-Is Report”. The maps are also reproduced in section 4.10 below.

3.3 Develop Strategy

3.3.1 Estimate future demand for cellular RF service on UBC lands

We discussed with carriers and UBC staff how they evaluate future demand. We added our own experience with industry trends.

3.3.2 Project pertinent future changes in wireless technology

We discussed this with carriers and UBC IT staff. We added our own knowledge of worldwide industry trends.

3.3.3 Assess site sharing issues

We looked at carriers’ desires, at what UBC currently requires, and at what the regulations allow (or demand).

3.3.4 Identify locations that are not appropriate for installations

Various reasons, which were discussed with UBC stakeholders, might make a site unsuitable for use as a cellular base station:

Safety

Aesthetics

Compatibility

Structural

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




Security

3.3.5 Develop criteria to evaluate new installation locations

We talked about this with the carriers and also discussed it in the UBC stakeholder workshops. In particular there was discussion around:

Location

Space

Communications

Power

Access & Security

Safety

3.3.6 Assess current approval process

We talked with the UBC stakeholders involved and also with the carriers to gain two different perspectives on the processes involved and the stages through which applications needed to pass. We also looked at the differences between the UBC processes and those involved with commercial buildings.

3.3.7 Review licensing, commercial terms and rates structure

We are able to comment, from our experience, on how typical commercial processes work and what rates are typically set.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




4 Research Results

4.1 Existing Cellular Installations

We have included full details of sites in the area culled from three different sources.

We were supplied with data from two UBC sources – Campus & Community Planning and Contracts & Leases. We looked up radio site data in the Industry Canada TAFL database. All the raw data, along with map presentations, is included in the “As-Is Report” and also in the Appendix (Section 7.3 on page 39). The Industry Canada map presentation is repeated below.

The first observation is that there are almost twice as many cellular sites in the region compared to the UBC lists. Two factors contribute to this difference:

1. The Industry Canada data includes sites that are located on non-UBC property. These sites have an impact on radio coverage and EMC – but will not be included in any UBC negotiations unless the carriers agree to add UBC into the loop. For this to happen would require some advantage to be offered to the carriers – and we have recommended that this be included in follow-on discussions with the carriers.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




2. Some “sites” are too small to be “on the radar” of the standard approval processes. There is no reason why carriers need to have approval of building owners or landlords for small relay systems that are little more than booster amplifiers – physically they could be similar to small wi-fi routers. Again the carriers might be persuaded to include UBC in the planning loop as long as there was no disincentive to doing so (such as process delays or cost). We have recommended that this be included in follow-on discussions with the carriers.

The second observation, based on feedback from discussions with the Facility Managers, is that the actual inventory of equipment at each site often varies compared with what was approved in the original permit. Again multiple factors contribute to these differences:

1. Maintenance work done at a site does not require a new permit – yet it can result in changes to antenna systems. These changes can include replacing one antenna with two – yet the carriers often still regard that as “maintenance” and will not go for a new “approval”.

2. Addition of new radio carriers might be done to add capacity without changing the antenna structures. Again no permit would be sought but the transmitted RF energy would likely have increased.

The UBC processes are seen by the carriers as more onerous than average. Whilst they respect the right of UBC to define its own processes it is only to be expected that they will look for “loopholes” that will allow them to avoid it. The standard UBC contract allows for maintenance work without revisiting the permit process – but does not limit what is defined as “maintenance work”. An exception to this is the Henry Angus building – where, due to specific problems with work done there, the Facility Manager has taken a more assertive “no-access without specific permission” stand (which we look at in more detail in Section 4.6.5 below).

The carriers want to avoid the time delays and financial penalties of having to re-visit the approval process. This does have an unintended consequence that the RF power levels in the site may increase without UBC being aware of it. Safety Code 6 obliges the carriers to measure RF power and ensure compliance after any changes are made but UBC will not be in that loop.

Clearly this needs to be addressed and we have included a pair of recommendations regarding the contract and the implications of Safety Code 6.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




4.2 Stakeholder Meeting Summary

4.2.1 Carriers

We were able to have one-on-one discussions by phone with all the carriers except for Bell (the contact was not available during our data gathering window). All of them commented about the complexity of the UBC approval process yet all agreed in discussion that they could probably contribute to the process if more involved in it. The perception in some cases was of a confrontational process rather than a collaborative one.

Many of the carriers engaged the services of 3rd party companies to do some of the work. In some cases it was searching out sites and in other cases it was construction. All agreed that they would be prepared to discuss a better approach to both aspects as long as it was more effective and not significantly more costly.

We were also able to talk with two of the 3rd party companies – one concerned with site negotiation and the other with construction. The added value of the site procurement company could easily be replaced by UBC offering the same service itself by leading the process rather than reacting to it. The construction company is currently proposing a site solution based on a large artificial tree structure that builds on the idea of visual camouflage to disguise a cell site. The idea has merit but needs a buy-in from the service providers. The present feeling is that the carriers will likely see other, less expensive, options as being preferable. They need to be convinced either that this is the only way of solving a coverage problem or that someone else will pay the “aesthetic marginal cost”.

4.2.2 UBC groups

The UBC stakeholders were divided into functional groups so that discussion areas were common within a grouping.

A clear desire came out for improvements to the process of handling site approvals. Everyone was prepared to accept that the carriers might perceive UBC as the cause of the problems, though their perceptions were more that the carrier demands were often unreasonable. There is a clear need to get the groups around the same table and have a facilitated discussion as to how the whole process can be restructured as a co-operative system rather than a confrontational one. If UBC can adapt to seeing the need for cellular as a utility need in the same way as electrical service then the whole design process of new buildings and even entire neighbourhoods could involve the cellular providers from the very beginning instead of after construction was complete.

There was also a clear statement that the carriers needed to better understand the university needs in terms of building access etc. This was a clear mirror to the carrier demands for UBC to have a better understanding of their business needs. Together these two perspectives show that both sides experience pain caused by the other side and the solution is to move to a more co-operative process throughout.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




Discussion about the UBC Neighbourhoods raised some interesting issues, apart from coverage. A key red flag item is that, unlike UBC property, not all the roads are private – presenting the carriers with an in-fill option not available to them elsewhere on the campus. Cellular service providers have a federal mandate that allows them to take whatever steps are needed to provide service. When they have access to federal or provincial property, the easiest way to exercise this privilege is to construct a microcell system based on a large street light fixture – as they have already done in some locations along Marine Drive to the west of the campus. At present, the carriers likely do not realize that this option is open to them – but, faced with strong opposition in some neighbourhoods to cell sites on rooftops, this may suddenly become an option visible to them. UBC needs to solve this problem first, or risk losing revenue and control over location.

4.2.3 Other UBC groups to be consulted

Because of the limited scope of this study there has been little opportunity for input from the academic side – i.e. faculty and students. The draft study has been presented to the university’s Property and Planning Advisory Committee, whose members represent both faculties and students, and it is understood that this final report will be posted online for university community comment. It must be understood that additional input could have further impact on some of the conclusions. Of particular concern is the fact that the key growth driver relates to what the end users need cellular capacity for. We, and also the carriers and the UBC staff, have our perceptions about the answers. However it is quite possible (perhaps even quite likely) that there could be a pivotal application lurking in the wings and that such a development might have a major impact on technology plans. Examples might include moves to electronic textbooks or online real-time research, or collaboration, using either the public internet or UBC IT resources.

4.3 Future Demand

Discussions with the cellular operators have shown this to be both a fast moving target and also a largely undefined quantity. Cellular capacity growth does not seem to be driven by any predicted need but rather as a reaction to demand in two ways.

1. Measurement of call volumes, or data use, in specific geographic locations.

2. Feedback from users regarding dropped calls and poor coverage.

Both these drivers are demand related rather than, as might be expected for a conventional business case model, predicted growth.

The biggest issue here is that virtually all growth is reactive not proactive. There is no advanced planning of future needs 3 or 5 years out. Ideally there should be – and one might reasonably expect that business cases for expenditure like new cell sites would include planned capacity needs. However that is not the way the industry works.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




We see a clear need, and the carriers understand and support this, for UBC and the cellular providers to have ongoing round-table discussions about growth plans. It is not reasonable to expect the carriers to share their own internal plans in a public forum – but they might share more information in confidence with UBC on an individual basis. The big advantage would be getting UBC growth information, which is public domain in most cases, in the hands of the cellular companies so that they are encouraged to react to planned growth rather than reacting after-the-fact as is done presently. In other words – make the planning more proactive.

One of the biggest benefits to UBC in this would be the ability to plan cell sites into building projects at the planning stage – when architects could design suitable disguising features to improve the visual appearance of a future site.

4.4 Projected Technology Evolution

None of the Cellular Operators was willing to speculate on how technology changes are going to impact the present network topology. They are all very much living in the “now” as far as their current network is concerned.

We are, however, aware of significant changes that are affecting networks in Europe – and also that such changes typically take around 3 to 5 years to move to North America. As a result we have given our own predictions as to how wireless technology is likely to develop over the next 5 to 10 years.

Technology will continue to evolve and, in the main, will retain backwards compatibility so that existing systems are not rendered redundant in the near future. All bets are off for timescales more than 10 years into the future but at least some stability should be available for a 5-year timeframe.

The biggest concern on the horizon is that cellular system use is drifting more towards data and away from traditional voice. The drivers behind this would seem to be the desire of the carriers around the world to get new “gadgets” into consumer hands – with first PDAs and now Tablets. To encourage use of PDAs, many carriers started offering reduced data tariffs – exploiting a largely unused aspect of cellular technology. At the time, cellphones were regarded as voice phones with a data option.

The entire cellular infrastructure is actually designed around vehicle-mounted voice phones – which is where it all began back in the 1980s. Inter-cell handoff is designed on the basis of how vehicles move from cell to cell. With the migration to pocket phones, the first change in use came with vastly increased numbers of cellphones and a corresponding reduction in cell size to accommodate the increasing traffic.

All this use was great news at the time for the carriers but it came with a price. Smaller cell size introduced more demands on the handoff protocol and the smaller cell sizes created yet more challenges in confined spaces.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




On top of all of this came data – initially just considered a more sophisticated version of text messaging, which itself grew out of paging applications. Starting with PDA phones (larger screens and keyboards with mini applications to mimic portable computers to a degree) we have moved to laptop computers with built-in cellular data systems and now tablet computers. Many of these new devices are data only – simply using cellular as a convenient network to use when unable to connect via Wi-Fi.

What started to catch the mobile phone providers totally by surprise around the world was when the younger generation started to abandon landline phones in favour of pocket cellphones. This move will significantly impact UBC housing where units designed for students will likely not need landline phones and internet but the area will need powerful cellular service in lieu.

Technologists in Europe (which tends to be about 5 years ahead of North America in Cellular development) started a few years ago to worry that using the cellular system for data in a massive way was putting an unmanageable strain on handoff and the backhaul network – both of which were optimised for call-based voice use rather than IP data. A better cordless technology for data is that used for WiFi – the 802.11 set of standards. New developments there are permitting a degree of network authentication (common in enterprise systems but currently very rare in the domestic market) and the ability to move from WiFi node to WiFi node while connected to e-mail or the web. The European model has now linked WiFi and Cellular in a new generation of dual-mode devices that will use either network for “backhaul” without the user needing to know or care which.

Whilst it may seem that this is all rather esoteric in the context of UBC it is actually central to the problem of growth.

If users of portable data devices are encouraged to stay with cellular by way of subsidized tariffs then there will be an uncontrolled and explosive demand for more capacity.

If, on the other hand, users use dual-mode devices and preferentially use WiFi where it is available then it may be that, in a WiFi rich environment like UBC, there is little demand for extra cellular capacity.

It is difficult to predict where the data growth is going to hit home.

If it is via cellular, as the cellphone companies would like to think, then there is a looming problem on the horizon.

If, however, it is steered towards WiFi then UBC is already ideally positioned by virtue of having a state-of-the-art campus-wide WiFi system.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




When European style dual-data-mode devices hit North America (possibly in around 3 to 5 years’ time) users will be able to work in-buildings with WiFi and move outdoors onto the cellular network transparently. Until then our conclusions suggest that UBC needs to build closer links between its IT-based WiFi planning and the student/academic needs in order to ensure that the right capacity is provided where needed.

4.5 Site Sharing

Our research with the Carriers showed two conflicting views.

1. Carriers want new capacity at lowest cost.

2. They want exclusivity to gain a competitive advantage over the other carriers so as to make their network more attractive.

Shared sites can give the carriers a lower cost but the revenue benefit is less because their competitors also benefit. There is evidence (mostly anecdotal) that carriers “partner” with each other – for example Telus may develop sites in BC and share freely with Bell and in turn Bell will develop sites in Ontario and share with Telus.

Landlords, like UBC, can decide to enforce a site sharing policy – something that is entirely consistent with Industry Canada rules that actually mandate the carriers to share infrastructure where appropriate. Landlords can influence sharing policy to a degree in their site rental rules. However these are most effective if the carriers have no other choices. When a major airport tried to impose restrictive rules, the carriers jointly decided on a boycott approach and simply relocated to sites on adjacent land. However where such options are not available then the carriers are more likely to agree to restrictive rules.

Careful wording on the part of UBC should allow site sharing to be enforced.

4.6 Inappropriate Sites

4.6.1 Safety

The use of building rooftop areas or “penthouse suites” is fairly well understood by architects as far as building codes are concerned. However, when the roof is used for radio transmission systems (not limited to cellular), the provisions of Safety Code 6 apply and basic architectural design alone is insufficient. As a “rule of thumb” for systems with cellular power levels, people should not be able to get closer than about 2m from a transmitting antenna – increasing to around 5m in the “main beam” or front part of the antenna. The actual distances are established by measured field strengths in each instance.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




To comply with Safety Code 6, a radio site must not have field strengths above the designated maximum level in areas where people can gain access. Mixed use rooftop sites are a hazard to manage and should be avoided if at all possible.

If it is not possible to secure a rooftop site against access by the general public then that rooftop might not be an appropriate site. The same issue would apply to lower levels of a stepped building if people occupying a lower terrace could get into the hazard zone (roughly within 5m of the antenna front) of antennae above. This might easily happen, for example, if antennae were to be located on a penthouse roof and the main roof had a paved access area below it.

With regard to Safety Code 6, which is the accepted Canadian standard regarding “Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz” – produced by Health Canada, we have a number of concerns about how conformance is certified and maintained.

UBC has the role of a landlord in most cases as far as its staff and visitors are concerned. As such it is expected that UBC will ensure that none of its people are exposed to RF energy levels exceeding those specified in Safety Code 6 in going about their daily business.

Where Cellular Base Stations are concerned, the normal process will be to ensure that a base station field strength is within the safe level range in all accessible locations. This can be done in several ways:

UBC can decide to measure RF levels itself to ensure that all radio systems on its property are safe. This process may need to be repeated periodically to ensure continued compliance.

UBC can require the service providers to test their installations for conformance – and to supply UBC with copies of the test results. UBC can maintain these test results on file to confirm its application of due diligence.

UBC can require, as part of its site approval process, that an independent audit of compliance with Safety Code 6 is carried out at the expense of the service provider – and that UBC are provided copies of the test results. UBC can maintain these test results on file to confirm its application of due diligence.

The Service Providers satisfy themselves that their installations comply with the Safety Code 6 rules. They have indicated that they would be perfectly willing to supply UBC with copies of their certifications on request.

However what is really important on site is that the total installation, which may comprise several cell sites, is in compliance at all points where people may reasonably be expected to gain access.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




If the Service Provider calculates RF levels numerically and applies those figures to drawings of the site in order to deduce compliance, which is one way that is used, then there may be a problem if the actual site differs from the drawings. Perhaps a walkway exists that was not on the drawing, or perhaps a second cell site overlaps coverage in a way that was not expected.

For free standing towers or other structures where people physically cannot get within about 5m of the antenna systems there is really no issue. The concern is particularly over rooftop sites where the antenna systems may end up illuminating an area where people might reasonably gain access. In this case it is essential that confirmation is established that the RF signal levels in those accessible locations are within Safety Code 6 levels.

Simply assuming that the carriers will do that is likely not sufficient.

We recommend that UBC establishes its own file copies of certified compliance for each site. These compliance certificates should be for the site – not for each base station. It is total RF exposure that matters, not what an individual antenna is radiating. With multiple Service Providers, it is recommended that these certificates are issued by an independent 3rd party auditor. A suitable authority would be a professional engineer registered in the Province of British Columbia, qualified in radio communications and not directly affiliated with the Service Provider. Test reports should bear the seal of the engineer so that it is clear who takes responsibility for the accuracy of the certificate. Radios and measurement equipment should have been tested for conformance to design specifications within twelve months prior to the conduct of the tests.

We further recommend that the Service Providers are instructed to call for a re-certification whenever any changes are made to their installation that could affect the transmitted field strength – including adding additional RF carriers or making mechanical adjustments to the antennae.

4.6.2 Aesthetics

UBC prides itself on building design. However indiscriminate additions of rooftop antenna systems can turn beauty into downright ugliness very easily.

The basic conflict is that, to be effective, cellular antenna systems need to be visible (in a radio sense) to the cellphones. Out-of-the-box antenna systems rarely look like parts of a building and the standard mounting techniques do little to change that.

Two approaches can be taken to reduce visual impact.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




1. Use disguising techniques – where radio-transparent material (typically fibreglass) can be used to fabricate a cover that looks more like what one would expect to see on top of a building. There are companies that specialize in this type of work and who can make antenna systems “disappear” from view while leaving them in plain sight from a radio perspective. The movie industry does this all the time when needing to make objects less intrusive.

2. Adapt the building design to include locations for radio antennae that are behind protective screens – like windows that are transparent to radio but opaque to light. Architects like this approach but it generally works best if designed into the building when it is built.

In general, aesthetics issues can best be tackled when a building is first designed – which leads to the concept of planning where base stations will be permitted when a development is planned not after it is complete. Aftermarket options do exist by way of fibreglass outer walls to the rooftop area, making an appealing visual statement that can be textured to fit into the building style, while hiding the antenna systems out of visual sight. UBC might wish to further explore this option to retro-fit existing “radio-enabled” rooftops in a visually appealing way.

4.6.3 Compatibility

The project scope did not include a detailed assessment of other radio users, although our discussions with IT have looked at the WiFi network briefly.

In general terms, however, it should be possible for those interested parties at UBC to simply tag buildings that should be “no-go” zones for RF transmitters. This would be better than the present process of positive rejection of applications because the lack of a rejection does not necessarily mean that it has been approved. It would be far better to give C&CP a list of no-go buildings.

4.6.4 Structural

We did not do any specific structural survey work because that is not our field of expertise. However, as with EMC in the previous section, it is considered that buildings could be tagged as structurally suitable or not suitable – giving C&CP a faster way of deciding whether to proceed with an application or not.

4.6.5 Security

This issue alone sparked more discussion amongst the Facility Managers than any other – especially since the main UBC cell site atop the Henry Angus building has proved to have the most security issues because of its proximity to executive boardrooms. We have included copies of an e-mail instruction and an access permit (see section 7.1.6 on page 37) that now apply to this site.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




It is difficult to see why these rules should only apply at the one site – unless they are effectively redefining the Henry Angus site as not an approved location. It is too early to know what the reaction will be of the cellular providers to being barred 24x7 access to their equipment, as implied by the original contract.

4.7 Proposed Site Evaluation Criteria

4.7.1 Location

The “ideal location” for a new site would provide capacity that balances existing capacity and better matches the need for growth.

Currently each carrier has a different pattern of cell sites on campus and also a different growth demand. On the face of it – each need would be different. Indeed that is how current site acquisition works.

The basic user pattern is virtually the same for each carrier. However the more mature carriers will have a larger volume to the pattern and will need more overall capacity.

Only rarely can carriers find a site at the “ideal” location. Usually they look for an acceptable nearby location. It is a set of compromises and is based more on empirical analysis than quantitative calculations.

Bearing this in mind it would be possible for UBC to take a more pro-active role in the process and to seek to define perhaps six key locations around the campus where cellular base stations would be ideally located from their viewpoint. Applying the rules of compromise, carrier input could be sought and the site choices refined to produce an idealized view of how the UBC campus might look in several years’ time when fully developed – with the appropriate number of cell sites that would then be needed.

Armed with this information, UBC could then “pre-approve” the selected sites and set up a common infrastructure of power and communications to support them. There would be no need for other sites to be considered in this scenario.

All such sites would, by definition, be shared facilities – with potentially all carriers at every location in due course of time. With a limited number of sites, UBC could consider requiring a common engineering contractor to be assigned to each site, with services subcontracted to each carrier. In that way there would be only one construction crew responsible for each site – with one set of drawings and one Safety Code 6 evaluation process.

Such an idea would appeal to the carriers if it reduced the complexity and/or cost to them – so it would need to be carefully crafted to be of benefit to everyone. If it was implemented then there would only be six approved locations (or whatever revised number was agreed).

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




4.7.2 Space

At present there is no clear growth plan for a site. The approved plans are based simply on a present day configuration – with the possibility that carriers might build in some growth and go for a partial implementation on day 1.

If the proposed pro-active process was adopted then it would be clear what overall capacity was available in each location and for whom it was reserved. This should include all radio users not just cellular.

The space needs to include antenna systems and equipment cabinets – which may be all on the roof or may be split between external and internal locations. If equipment is in a separate location then the site needs adequate cable riser trays (see section 4.7.3 below).

4.7.3 Communications

If all equipment is located on the roof then the requirement is for cable trays to keep the roof area tidy and secure. There may be a small need for back-haul communications landlines in the main building cable risers but that should not be a major problem.

If, however, the equipment is indoors there will need to be cable trays between the indoor and outdoor locations with special needs in terms of large bend radius to accommodate the RF cabling.

4.7.4 Power

The equipment bays at a cell site need standard a/c electric utility power. Either this can be contracted from the utility company by the cellular provider, or it could be provided by UBC in bulk for the site and included in the rental cost.

Ideally the carriers like to go for protected power supplies to reduce the risk of site failure due to power outage. In some cases, generator backup is provided.

UBC might consider offering higher grade “maintained power” if it has UPS / Generator service in the building.

4.7.5 Access & Security

Carriers generally expect 24x7 access to their equipment in order to be able to offer their customers a 24x7 service. The nature of cellular communication is such that failure of a single cell in a high density network will not cause a total service isolation but rather will introduce coverage and capacity problems. In other words service would be degraded not lost.

Many cell site locations do not allow 24x7 access to the antenna systems – for example those located atop electrical transmission towers require specialist expertise to access the antennae. However the carriers generally try to leave access available to their equipment cabinets – which covers most of the likely failures that would need emergency access.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




Where access is a problem, such as was commented about earlier with regard to Henry Angus, it may be appropriate to encourage a split site design where equipment can be located where access is less of a problem. This may be a possible consideration for a retro-fit at Henry Angus – however there would be concerns over justifying the cost.

4.7.6 Safety

Physical

There are real concerns over physical safety at a site – which usually just means that confirmation must be obtained in the approvals process that the staff used by contractors are suitably trained, skilled and insured to do the work. This is standard risk management and is likely not a problem for UBC.

RF Energy

We have commented at length about the issues surrounding Safety Code 6.

Some sites lend themselves to easy approval – where the antenna locations are well away from areas accessible to the public. Other sites, usually those allowing some sort of roof level access to non-trained staff, can be a nightmare to plan and certify. Given a choice, these sites should be avoided in favour of more easily certified sites.

Perception

Probably the most difficult of all, because it is so intangible, is what people see as a “problem” even if it is not. This is largely similar to visual issues. If people can see antennae then some will perceive that there is a danger from the energy radiating from it. No matter how many tests are carried out to verify safe operation, these perceptions often remain. The only answer is to pay close attention to where antennae can be seen and where these perceptions might occur. Designing shrouded antenna systems that are basically invisible for what they are is a possible way forward in difficult cases.

4.8 Proposed Approval Process – Technical

This process is basically understood, although not as well controlled. It consists of approving a site application, initially with a Development Permit and later with a Building Permit; though the detail may, confusingly, vary from site to site.

We have no issue with the steps involved. Where we have concern is with the overall process – a concern that is mirrored by the carriers.

This concern is deepened when drawings are returned to carriers with an “Approved” stamp from UBC – meaning that one stage of the process has been approved. However a reasonable interpretation might also be that the drawing, and hence the overall request, is approved.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




What is needed is a single point of contact to deal exclusively with every stage of all applications – with no ambiguity. Likely that would be C&CP – who handle most of the current process. This single contact point needs a checklist that itemizes all possible stages of technical approval and which department is responsible for either giving that approval or waiving the need in a specific case. With that revised approach it would be clear what approvals are needed, and also when they have been given – by way of a positive sign-off. Currently approval may be seen to be implied if no negative response if provided – which is not a safe process. With this single contact point, the carriers would only have one process to deal with and only one approval would result – eliminating the ambiguity.

4.9 Proposed Approval Process – Commercial

There is often a perception that the cellular business is cash rich and well able to pay large amounts of money in site rental fees. Certainly in some limited cases, where no other options exist and a need for a site is paramount, landlords can attract fees in the order of $3,000 per month. Where more options exist, or where the need is less vital, the fees can be less than a tenth of that.

Carriers do not usually pay for the approval process. Landlords generally recover that cost over the life of the site from the monthly rental. The present UBC fee structure is, in contrast, based on permit fees paid up-front followed by a lower site license agreement user fee.

Based on averages in the marketplace, we would expect that a site at UBC could command in the order of $10,000 per year.

Alternative mechanisms can be devised where contra-deals are made for sponsorship or advertising. Sometimes these deals can result in higher payments because the benefits to the cellular company are not just associated with the site.

A fee structure could be devised where the operators pay a general site fee for access to all UBC sites, based on their cell capacity or some such measurement to share to cost fairly. In this case the aim would be to work out costs and required financial return for the network of sites and then establish a fair way of sharing that cost between the carriers. The opportunity would be there to factor in all manner of costs, including:

project management

construction by a UBC-sponsored company

power, possibly including backup

visual screening

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




4.10 Field Survey around Allard Hall

The route taken and the survey point locations are shown on the map below. We managed to take the survey around the Chancellor neighbourhood and back almost as far as the Henry Angus base station.

At each survey location we took a GPS fix and a signal strength reading. The full table of results and large size maps are included in the separate as-is report. The measured signal is shown in the raw data as a dBm figure.

We have included a section in the Appendix (Section 7.4 on page 41) showing how a signal strength translates into perceived quality. Using that as a guideline the raw data measurements were classified into colours – indicating areas with unreliable signal level (red), acceptable for outdoor use (yellow) and good signal (green). The Henry Angus cell site is shown as a cyan spot at the bottom of the map.

Several interesting conclusions can be drawn from these results, though none are entirely unexpected.

1. The green spots show where the Henry Angus rooftop can be clearly seen.

2. The yellow spots show where the cell site is obscured by other buildings or even by trees – showing that this site is not an ideal location on its own to cover the north campus.

3. The red spots are generally at more extreme range where the cell site is not visible. The fact that the ground level falls away from Walter Gage Road down to Marine Drive certainly does not help visibility of the Henry Angus roof. Even so there are pockets of good reception where gaps exist between buildings

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




4. The rooftop of the Buchanan Tower would seem to be the best location to improve coverage in this area, as even the Gage Tower is not clearly visible in all places.

5. The larger than expected number of yellow spots show that in-building coverage is likely to be poorer than would be expected. Combining this with increasing use of better insulation in new buildings - including low-e glass, which is notorious for poor RF transmission shows that UBC might need to consider its policy with regard to in-building coverage. If that is a necessary service then either active repeaters are going to be needed in many buildings or a restructuring of the main cell sites might be an option to give stronger outdoor coverage.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




5 Recommendations

These recommendations are presented here in the order that they were developed in the report text, for ease of cross-reference. In a later section giving the suggested next steps, they will be organized into priority order.

5.1 Existing Installations

1. Follow-on discussions with carriers should include all sites that serve UBC property even if the sites are located on non-UBC land. It should be clear that UBC’s aim is not to solicit payment nor to impose regulations for such sites (which it cannot do anyway) but that they impact the overall picture of what is needed by way of sites. [from Section 4.1 on page 10]

2. All installations on UBC property, including small in-building systems, should be included in discussions even though some may not be subjected to the Development Permit process. [from Section 4.1 on page 10]

3. UBC might wish to consider aesthetics retrofit options for existing buildings. [from Section 4.6.2 on page 18]

5.2 Future Installations

1. UBC needs to actively work at resolving opposition to cell sites serving neighbourhood areas before the carriers take steps to procure provincial land for the purpose as they have done in places along Marine Drive. [from Section 4.2.2 on page 12]

2. This process has had little input to date from the academic side. UBC needs to be aware that they are the key “needs drivers” who will influence the use of the communications technology provided both by the WiFi and cellular data systems. Suitable facilitated discussions need to take place at an appropriate time to brainstorm potential future uses and their impact on communications needs. [from Section 4.2.3 on page 13]

3. UBC IT staff need to be closely involved with all growth plans related to cellular – particularly where both are competing for the same basic user need. [from Section 4.3 on page 13]

4. As part of the suggested pro-active discussions with the carriers, UBC needs to share its own future plans and elicit input from the carriers on the impact on their own future plans. [from Section 4.3 on page 13]

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




5. Carriers need to look at possibly satisfying their demand using WiFi capacity from UBC on a contracted basis (eg private hotspots – virtualized on the UBC network). [from Section 4.3 on page 13]

6. Aesthetics issues should, if possible, be tackled when buildings are planned. [from Section 4.6.2 on page 18]

7. UBC should establish a process to tag all its buildings as “acceptable” or “non-acceptable” for rooftop RF installations (not specifically cellular) from a EMC (electro-magnetic compatibility) viewpoint. This classification would then guide C&CP in deciding where to process applications and where to decline them up front. [from Section 4.6.3 on page 19]

8. UBC should establish a similar process to tag all its buildings as “acceptable” or “non-acceptable” for rooftop RF installations (not specifically cellular) from a structural viewpoint. This classification would then guide C&CP in deciding where to process applications and where to decline them up front. [from Section 4.6.4 on page 19]

9. UBC should consider taking on the role of locating and planning new sites. This would effectively replace the role played currently by 3rd party site acquisition companies (typically affiliated with real-estate companies and paid by the carriers to negotiate sites). In this way, the carriers would pay UBC the same fee and UBC would carry out the entire role, incorporating site planning into the process. [from Section 4.7.1 on page 20]

10. As part of this pro-active process, UBC should discuss with the carriers how to build a long term plan of the likely number of sites over a ten year period. Possibly a grid of six or eight sites might be needed if all are rooftop sites. This would allow for long term planning in UBC to be ready for upcoming carrier needs in a more timely way. [from Section 4.7.1 on page 20]

11. A discussion should be had with all radio users about the possible growing need for in-building systems with the aim of planning them like existing utilities (lighting etc) and incorporating them into building designs and renovations as needed. [from Section 4.7.1 on page 20]

12. Consideration should be given to offering higher grade power, possibly maintained by UPS / Generator if available. [from Section 4.7.4 on page 21]

13. Consider resolving site security issues by encouraging the location of equipment indoors in a less secure area than the rooftop. [from Section 4.7.5 on page 21]

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




5.3 Contract Issues

1. UBC should initiate the creation of a new co-operative framework of facilitated round-table discussions with the carriers aimed at restructuring the whole process of site selection – and also aimed at educating the carriers as to their objectives and needs. [from Section 4.2.2 on page 12]

2. UBC should amend the contract words to clearly indicate that site sharing is not just desirable but is mandatory wherever possible – to the extent of looking at sharing nearby sites rather than choosing new. [from Section 4.5 on page 16]

3. UBC should set up its own files of certified compliance for each site. These compliance certificates should be for the site – not for each base station. It is total RF exposure that matters, not what an individual antenna is radiating. [from Section 4.6.1 on page 16]

4. These certificates should be issued by an independent 3rd party auditor. A suitable authority would be a professional engineer registered in the Province of British Columbia, qualified in radio communications and not directly affiliated with the Service Provider. Test reports should bear the seal of the engineer so that it is clear who takes responsibility for the accuracy of the certificate. Radios and measurement equipment should have been tested for conformance to design specifications within twelve months prior to the conduct of the tests. [from Section 4.6.1 on page 16]

5. The new rules applied to the Henry Angus installation should be incorporated into the standard contract rules governing acceptable behaviour at all sites. [from Section 4.6.5 on page 19]

6. Set up a single point of contact for all carrier dealings to replace the current system where carriers deal directly with several departments. [from Section 4.8 on page 22]

7. Establish a checklist of signoff authorities and mandate them to either sign off their involvement as ‘explicitly not required’ or to sign off when the process is completed to their satisfaction. [from Section 4.8 on page 22]

8. Consider alternative options for levying fees for the use of UBC locations [from Section 4.9 on page 23] – such as:

a. $10,000 per year rental fee replacing permit fees etc

b. UBC access license to cover all sites

c. Site acquisition fees similar to those currently paid to 3rd party realty agents to find sites

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




d. Contra deals where payment might be made for a non-related UBC need (such as sports gear) on a sponsorship basis

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




6 Next Steps

The work completed by this project could lead to a number of different “next steps”. By default, “business as usual” will continue until such time as steps are taken to implement changes – hence the problems identified will continue to compound and will become progressively more difficult to resolve retrospectively.

Our recommendations are grouped in the following subsections, with the highest priority recommendations listed first.

The first section addresses issues that are internal to UBC and can easily be incorporated into inter-departmental discussions for implementation. Of these, some are procedural and clearly within the scope of responsibility of C&CP as the original project sponsors; however some of the issues are technical and should likely involve IT more closely. In particular there is overlap between the UBC Wi-Fi and Cellular Data services, which may themselves trend towards more of a Wi-Fi based service delivery in high density locations.

The second section addresses issues that involve the carriers to varying degrees and the best results would be achieved with a more formal approach based on experience in the cellular industry. Some of these issues are technical, and would benefit from internal discussions first to establish the relationship between the IT department, the ESI committee and the contracts departments. It is for UBC to consider which departments are best suited to managing and funding the on-going work, but it is strongly recommended that all be actively involved in the process.

The final section looks at one of the key recommendations from the interim report that raised considerable interest in the following presentations – the suggestion that UBC could fix a lot of the problems by taking a more pro-active control of the site selection and approval process.

6.1 Internal Issues

6.1.1 Academic Input

UBC needs to complete the data gathering process by holding facilitated workshops with the academic users (faculty and students) to discuss and expand on any input received after the first phase study.

This input may generate further ideas for discussion in the technical forums that follow, so it should be a top priority to complete this work.

It is recommended that UBC use external resources to facilitate these discussions in the same way that other input workshops were managed.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




6.1.2 Procedural

UBC should organize planning workshops to achieve agreement on procedures and standards for the following issues, involving various participants as needed:

setting up a file for each site with compliance certificates issued by an independent 3rd party auditor

setting up a single point of contact for all carrier dealings to replace the current system where carriers deal directly with several departments

establishing a checklist of signoff authorities and mandate them to either sign off their involvement as ‘explicitly not required’ or to sign off when the process is completed to their satisfaction

the option of resolving site security issues by encouraging the location of equipment indoors in a less secure area than the rooftop

the option of incorporating the new rules applied to the Henry Angus installation into the standard contract rules governing acceptable behaviour at all sites

amendments to the contract words to clearly indicate that site sharing is not just desirable but is mandatory wherever possible

options for levying fees for the use of UBC locations

the option of offering higher grade power, possibly maintained by UPS / Generator if available

aesthetics retrofit options for existing buildings

amendments to building planning processes to address future antenna aesthetics issues

UBC might choose to proceed with these issues led by C&CP on an entirely internal basis. Such an approach would neither require external support nor funding.

Alternatively UBC might prefer to use external resources to facilitate the discussions. Such an approach would benefit from a professional “project management” style of organization and would likely lead to more rapid achievement of the goals.

6.1.3 Technical

UBC should organize discussion workshops to consider technical options and standards for the following issues, involving various participants as needed:

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




a process to tag all its buildings as “acceptable” or “non-acceptable” for rooftop RF installations (not specifically cellular) from a EMC (electro-magnetic compatibility) viewpoint and also from a structural viewpoint – to guide C&CP in deciding where to process applications and where to decline them up front

the possible growing need for in-building systems with the aim of planning them like existing utilities (lighting etc) and incorporating them into building designs and renovations as needed

all growth plans related to cellular – particularly where cellular and WiFi are competing for the same basic user need

possible options for satisfying user demand using WiFi capacity from UBC supplied to the cellular operators on a contracted basis (eg private hotspots – virtualized on the UBC network)

UBC could choose to proceed with these issues on an entirely internal basis – lead either by C&CP, as with the Procedural Issues, or by IT, recognizing the technology bias. Neither approach would require external support or funding.

Alternatively UBC might prefer to use external resources to project manage the discussions. Such an approach would bring facilitation skills experience based on industry knowledge external to UBC and would more smoothly vector into the ultimate production of project plans to present to the Cellular Providers.

6.2 External Issues

The workshops for these issues will take place in two phases. Firstly the UBC parties need to discuss what UBC wants to achieve in each case, as well as what it can offer to the carriers. Once these “ground rules” are established and agreed the designated representative can lead the second series of workshops with the carriers to explore, define and establish a new set of interworking agreements. The issues to be discussed are as follows:

obtaining input from the “real end users”, who will influence the use of the communications technology provided both by the WiFi and cellular data systems

resolving opposition to cell sites serving neighbourhood areas

sharing UBC future plans and eliciting input from the carriers on the impact on their future plans

improved knowledge sharing by carriers with UBC regarding all sites that serve UBC property even if the sites are located on non-UBC land

any non-permit related installations, such as small in-building systems

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




Again, UBC could choose to address with these issues on an entirely internal basis. Leadership could be provided by any of several departments, since the core issues span many fields of interest.

However, because of the large number of departments involved, UBC might prefer to engage external resources to project manage the discussions. As with the Phase 1 (Study) project, the use of an independent, industry-skilled consultant would help to develop these basic ideas into proposals that will not only meet UBC needs but will also be ready for integration into Carrier processes relatively smoothly.

6.3 UBC Process Management Option

This issue is effectively a special case of the previous section. It will start with a need for a series of internal UBC workshops to establish what is required and what is on offer – the “ground rules”. It will follow on with negotiation workshops with the carriers to turn the ideas developed into a set of rules defining the new working relationship. Steps to be considered will include:

review the role of locating and planning new sites (effectively replacing the role played currently by 3rd party site acquisition companies)

consider design options for the type of cellular base station network that it would prefer to have – considering options such as:

o conventional rooftop sites

o large structures, such as the “fake tree” option on the table for the TRIUMF site

o lower level “street furniture” structures, such as lighting poles, as currently under consideration in Surrey

o multi-purpose structures, such as the e/v charging stations under consideration in Vancouver

discuss with the carriers how to build a long term plan of the likely number of sites over a ten year period

initiate the creation of a new co-operative framework of facilitated round-table discussions with the carriers aimed at restructuring the whole process of site selection

Again, UBC could choose to proceed with these issues on an entirely internal basis – lead either by C&CP or by IT.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




However the use of external resources to manage the interface work with the Cellular Providers is strongly recommended in view of the many interwoven issues involved. Producing success in this area in a short time requires experience in how the industry works; and also requires independence from the industry in order to adequately vision and present the “Client Needs” of UBC.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




7 Appendix

7.1 Stakeholder Meetings

These raw notes were taken from the discussion whiteboard and are included simply to record the key points raised in the discussions. They are not the only input from the meetings but represent those ideas which were presented by the delegates, recorded on the whiteboard and used as discussion catalysts. Some of the one-on-one meetings used a more relaxed discussion style, which resulted in fewer whiteboard notes and this reflects in less recorded detail here.

7.1.1 Monday – 8am

8am – 9:30 – Gardenia Room

Gerry McGeough University Architect (first part)

Kavie Toor Recreation Facilities (first part)

Suzanne Poohkay Infrastructure Development (second part)

Bob Macdonald IT (all meeting)

Towers – 3rd party

o Assets / revenue

Campus Character

o Environment

o Co-location

Reduce roof maintenance costs

o Plan layout of sites

o Landscaping

Siting

Bring Building Stewards in earlier

Need UBC Plan

o 5 – 10 year roadmap

Reduce number of parallel networks

o WiFi vs Cellular data

UBC is a Cisco Beta Site

o WiFi network has 2400 Aps

o All APs support all SSIDs

Need one centralized governance structure

o Cellular is a Utility

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




7.1.2 Monday 1pm

13:00 – 14:30 – Room 221

Chris Skipper FM

Greig Samodien FM

Rob MacDonald FM

Geoff Armstrong IT

Lack of Project Manager

o C&CP assign PM?

Need checklist

Carriers think they have free reign once approved

o Henry Angus e-mail

If sites are built for growth – is growth a “new use”?

What is “approval”?

o Does it include layout specifics?

Role of University Properties Trust

7.1.3 Tuesday 10am

10:00 – 11:30 – Room 221

Ed Lin Chief Building Officer

James Heth Treasury

What do Carriers want?

o Currently Reactive

o No discussion re options

Safety Issues

o Additional work

Need general MOU with carriers

License fees

o Up Front

o Ongoing

Process is not clear

o Relies too much on individuals

o Not defined who needs to be involved

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




No development permits generally needed for in-building work

Should be a Project Manager assigned (by UBC) for each site

7.1.4 Tuesday 1pm

13:00 – 14:30 – Room 220

Bruce Anderson Risk Management

Meeting was a one-on-one general discussion

Need to be sure that risk issues have been addressed

Do not need to be in the loop of actual verification

7.1.5 Tuesday 3pm

15:00 – 16:30 – Room 220

Jan Fialkowski University Neighbourhoods Association

Meeting was a one-on-one general discussion

No specific key points were documented

7.1.6 Tuesday July 17th

Room 220

Mark Halpern Physics / ESI Committee

(note: this meeting was held after the interim report was produced – however the input was considered sufficiently important to itemize separately in this final report, especially since it leads to some specific additional conclusions)

The work of RF labs on the Vancouver campus is significantly compromised by the many

RF signal sources on campus. The problem is most serious on the rooftop test sites

where antennae cannot be calibrated properly if there is an RF source other than the

calibration transmitter in their field of view.

It is appreciated that the ideal zero RF environment is not a practical goal, however it is

considered that a “controlled RF zone” is a possible practical goal to aim for. The aim

would be to have a high building site dedicated to the Physics Department to use as the

RF source – along with a second lower rooftop, also dedicated to the Physics

Department, such that receiving antennae could be installed there. When “looking” at

the transmitter site, there would be a virtual cone of space, based on the receiving

antenna, where no RF transmitting systems would be permitted other than the single

calibration source.

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




The relatively low transmit power of a cellular base station will mean that installations

outside the control zone “cone” will not significantly affect the measurements.

Although outside the scope of this study, it was observed that higher powered

microwave links should, where possible, be sited so as not to “beam across” the campus

– which will guide the selection of suitable sites.

The idea of possibly migrating from a small number of rooftop sites to a larger number

of lower powered sites nearer to ground level was discussed as a possible future way of

reducing RF interference issues.

There remains a need for the ESI committee to be involved in the site approval process;

continuing the existing procedures of sending the information to them for review and

allowing a time period for a response, with no response implying no objections.

7.2 Henry Angus Rules

The following is the text of an e-mail sent to Richard Lees of Mott Electric, one of the contractors needing access to the Henry Angus rooftop site, by Rob MacDonald, the UBC Facility Manager. This e-mail sets out the new policy that is being applied at that location to all companies requiring access.

From: MacDonald, Rob (Facilities Management, Building Operations)

To: Richard Lees ([email protected]) <[email protected]>

Cc: Din, Tariq

Sent: Thu May 03 15:17:36 2012

Subject: UBC REQUIREMENTS FOR ROOF TOP ACCESS

Hello Richard,

As discussed. Please provide the following information at your earliest possible convenience.

Mandatory Requirements of the Carrier:

WorkSafeBC proof of registration.

Site Specific Fall protection plan for the Henry Angus site at 2053 Main Mall.

Statement that employees assigned to work are trained and qualified to be working on the roof top. (includes all sub trades currently under contract to MTI/MOTT)

Name and contact information of the MTI/MOTT agent responsible for health and safety activities.

Name and contact information of the MTI/MOTT technician assigned to this Site. (if applicable)

Name and contact information of the MTI/MOTT agent responsible for operations at this site.

Complete and return the “One Year Roof Top Access Form”.

Keys will be issued upon receipt of this information.

Incident and Accident Reporting:

All incidents or accidents must be reported to the University of B.C. Please utilize this form when reporting incidents or accidents to the Facilities Manager. http://riskmanagement.ubc.ca/sites/riskmanagement.ubc.ca/files/uploads/Documents/ Contractor_Incident_Form.pdf

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




It is understood that MTI/MOTT and their contractors are responsible for First Aid while working on the UBC Point Grey Campus.

Other Requirements:

Any future proposed development of the carrier’s site must be brought forward to Campus & Community Planning. http://www.planning.ubc.ca/vancouver_home/licensing_and_permits/development_permits.php

Utilize UBC Project Services for coordination of construction activities. http://www.projectservices.lbs.ubc.ca/

Provide updated information on any changes to principal MTI/MOTT staff and contractors in a timely manner.

This agreement to be reviewed and renewed annually prior to the anniversary date.

Access Protocol:

Planned and unplanned work is at the discretion of the carrier. Building Operations requests timely notice of all work conducted at this site.

For planned work, please notify the Facilities Manager 24 hours prior to start-up of work.

For unplanned work (urgent or emergency) 24/7, please contact the Facility Manager as soon as possible.

In the event your Facilities Manager can not be reached, please contact his/her designate, or contact Building Operations Trouble Calls @ 604-822-2172.

Until keys for roof access are issued, access will be provided by the Facilities Manager or his/her designate. Designate persons are: Mike Devolin, Facilities Manager. Mark Daigle, Architectural Systems Manager.

Note: The Penthouse Boardrooms of the Henry Angus Building sometimes facilitate meetings requiring security measures that prohibit access to the ninth floor and penthouse roof. These events can be unscheduled and will affect your access.

Regards, Rob MacDonald Facilities Manager, Zone 4

The “One Year Roof Top Access Form” referred to in the e-mail is reproduced opposite.

7.3 Cell Site Inventory

7.3.1 C&CP Permit List

Dev Permit

Bldg Permit

Address Project Name Applicant Carrier Permit Status

DP 06009

BP 08019

6288 Stadium Road Bell Antenna for Matthews Field

Ian McBean, Scott Land & Lease Ltd

Bell Complete

DP 06010

BP 07032

2053 Main Mall Bell Antenna for Henry Angus

Ian McBean, Scott Land & Lease Ltd

Bell Complete

DP 10026

BP 10076

2725 Melfa Rd Acadia Tower Telecommunications

Marc Parras, Wind Mobile

Wind Mobile Complete

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




DP 11006

BP 12011

2725 Melfa Rd Wind Mobile - Acadia Tower

Robert Lepage, Wind Mobile

Wind Mobile Complete

DP 11007

BP 11016

2053 Main Mall Henry Angus Antennae

Gina MacInnes, Telus TELUS/Bell/Rogers/WindMobile

Complete

DP 11021

No BP 6393 NW Marine Dr.

MoA Antenna Brent Laoun, Altus for Telus

TELUS Complete

DP 11022

BP 11098

2725 Melfa Rd Acadia Antenna Chad Marlatt, Telus TELUS Complete

DP 11031

BP 12036

5959 Student Union Blvd

Gage Antenna Irv Hildebrand, for Telus TELUS Under Construction

DP 11034

BP 12016

6005 Walter Gage Rd

West Point Antennas Sarah Farina, Altus for Telus

TELUS Under Construction

DP 12008

BP 12036

1873 East Mall Buch Tower Antennae

Ryan McKeown, Data + Audio

Dave Wireless/Mobilicity

DP Pending

DP 12009

2601 East Mall Feric Antennae Brent Laoun, Altus for Telus

TELUS DP Pending

DP 12011

2525 West Mall Totem Residence Antennae

Brent Laoun, Altus for Rogers

Rogers DP Pending

No DP BP

12059 2211 Wesbrook Mall

Koerner Pavilion Antennae (In-Build)

Sarah Farina, Altus for Telus

TELUS BP Issued

No DP

6066 Thunderbird Blvd

Thunderbird Sports Centre (In-Build)

Brent Laoun, Altus for Telus

TELUS Upcoming

7.3.2 C&L Antenna Licenses List

Carrier Building

Globalive Wireless Management Corp. - Wind Mobile Acadia Tower

Henry Angus

Bell Mobility Inc. Henry Angus

Matthews Field

Rogers Henry Angus

Matthews Field

Totem Residence (in process)

Telus Henry Angus

Museum of Anthropology (in-build)

Gage Tower North (in process)

Koerner Pavilion (UBC consent only, no license)

FERIC Building (UBC consent only, no license)

Mobilicity Buchanan Tower (in process)

7.3.3 Industry Canada “Technical and Administrative Frequency Lists” (TAFL)

Station Location Lat - Dec Long - Dec Location Bell Rogers Telus Globalive

B0247-4250 WESBROOK MALL 49.24527778 -123.2330556 IC01 y

W1513-VANCOUVER BC 11.58M S/O MARIN 49.25194444 -123.2472222 IC03 y

W2292-VANCOUVER BC SOUTH WEST MARIN 49.25472222 -123.2422222 IC04 y y

W2605-VANCOUVER BC 6066 THUNDERBIRD 49.25972222 -123.2419444 IC06 y y

"BC1159: 2725 Melfa Rd." 49.26194444 -123.2366667 IC10 y y

"BC1175: 4620 W.10th Ave. (Univers" 49.26333333 -123.2127778 IC13 y y y y

VANCOUVER UBC 6501 NW MARINE DRIVE 49.26361111 -123.2594444 IC19 y

Cellular RF Study

Final Report




"BC0159: 2053 Main Hall, UBC" 49.26444444 -123.2533333 IC24 y y y

W0298A-VANCOUVER BC 2233 ALLISON RO 49.26527778 -123.2419444 IC28 y

W5252-VANCOUVER BC 6138 STUDENT UNI 49.26694444 -123.2488889 IC33 y

7.4 Required Radio Signal Strength

From one of our professional RF engineers, the following guidelines are useful to show what received signal strength is required for “good coverage”.

We have used a figure of -76dBm “on the street” as necessary to provide in-building coverage, allowing 20dB for building loss (thus -96 dBm minimum for adequate coverage in the open).

This is based on a requirement for received signal quality of about DAQ 4.0 (Delivered Audio Quality 4.0 = “Speech easily understood, some noise/distortion present”). As an aid to system design, DAQ 3.4 (“Speech understandable without repetition, some noise/distortion present.”) has been measured by NTIA (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration) to be approximately equivalent to 22 dBs (22 dB SINAD) for analogue signals modulated with a 1 kHz tone at 1.5 kHz deviation, and to 2% BER (Bit Error Rate) for digital signals. It may also be approximately equivalent to a received signal level of -109 dBm (0.8 microvolts across a 50 ohm load), in the absence of other signals that may affect the receiver. Good design must provide a margin of not less than 10 dB to allow for uncontrolled variables, so say -99 dBm as a target. That’s within 3 dB of what we used with one client to achieve approximately DAQ 4.0.

Reinforced concrete buildings with reflective glass often show signal loss of more than 20 dB at 800 MHz and higher, but when loss approaches 20 dB the signal is deemed unreliable anyway, so that’s the figure we use as a cut-off for design. (When the loss approaches 20 dB we find that whatever is received is usually via multi-path with severe delay distortion, making the signal unusable.)

Based on this recommendation, we classified our survey data as:

1. Better than -76dBm – solid coverage – green

2. Between -77dBm and -96dBm – good outdoor coverage – yellow

3. Worse than -97dBm – unreliable coverage - red